As the planet logs some of its warmest years on record, Maryland is trying to make good on some of the most ambitious climate goals in the country. But the state is struggling to keep up with deadlines it set for itself.
Maryland is halfway to its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions — the primary driver of climate change — by 60% by 2031, though progress has been at a standstill since 2020. It has another, more ambitious goal on the horizon: net zero emissions by 2045.
The state is also trying to transition to renewable energy, aiming for half of its electricity to come from renewables by 2030. That includes a significant chunk from solar energy, though experts say reaching these goals is proving difficult.
Federal opposition to state climate action poses a problem, too. In an April executive order, President Donald Trump directed his administration to halt the enforcement of state climate laws, calling them a threat to national security, the economy and “American energy dominance.”
Adding it all up, environmentalists see Maryland’s climate ambitions as laudable — but threatened.
“Maryland is not on track right now for either its renewable energy goals or for its climate goals,” said Josh Tulkin, director of the Maryland Sierra Club. “That doesn’t mean that it can’t be on track, though, because there’s a lot of positive programs that will help improve people’s lives and reduce pollution and help with the climate.”
Reducing emissions
Maryland’s plans for emissions reductions are among the nation’s most ambitious — but the state is struggling to keep up with its ambitions.
A 2022 state law says by 2031, Maryland must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 60% compared to 2006. By 2045, it must produce net zero emissions of the gases that cause global warming.
Getting to a 60% reduction by 2031 would require programs to cut emissions of carbon dioxide — the main driver of climate change across Maryland’s economy — and cost $1 billion a year, according to the state’s Climate Pollution Reduction Plan.
Maryland reduced its emissions 30% by 2020, halfway to the 2031 goal, according to the state Department of the Environment’s greenhouse gas inventory.
But the state hasn’t made progress since then. Though emissions vary across economic sectors, state officials are expecting to see a slight increase in statewide emissions from 2020 to 2023. This is because transportation emissions — the largest category — have increased 6% since the end of the 2020 COVID-19 lockdown as emissions from electricity have dropped 10%, according to preliminary state data.
Meanwhile, the state hasn’t found a source for the $1 billion annual investment needed to reach its emissions goals.
“We don’t have cash coming in the door,” said Kim Coble, executive director of the Maryland League of Conservation Voters. “So that will slow down the implementation and meeting those reduction goals, no doubt about it.”
On top of that, the state just passed legislation to speed up permitting for new natural gas power plants amid concerns about high energy prices. That could worsen greenhouse gas emissions, though natural gas-fired power plants are cleaner than coal or oil plants.
Coble said she believes the state remains committed to its goals, but she’s pessimistic about meeting them on time because of money issues — including the Trump administration’s impact on climate funding.
The federal administration has made cuts to state climate grants and dismissed climate researchers. It’s also started rolling back environmental regulations as it tries to reinvigorate the country’s fossil fuel industries.
“Under the (Joe) Biden administration they had billions of dollars going toward it, and I would have been far more optimistic,” Coble said. “But that money is in jeopardy, and those of us working in this field … don’t even know if it’s going to get deployed and how, what that looks like.”
Renewable energy
Maryland has been moving toward renewable energy for decades, but as of right now, it’s not on track to hit the goals set by the General Assembly six years ago.
Half of Maryland’s electricity consumption is supposed to come from renewable sources by 2030, according to a 2019 law. Within that half, 14.5% of consumption must come from solar power.
But the state is falling behind.
“At this rate, we won’t meet the 14.5% [solar] carveout by 2030,” Paul Pinsky, director of the Maryland Energy Administration, said at a briefing earlier this year.
He was introducing a report published by the Maryland Energy Administration, which concluded renewables in Maryland and the surrounding region aren’t growing fast enough to keep up with state goals.
Experts also point to issues with the state’s system of incentivizing renewable energy. Electricity suppliers can either provide renewable energy by buying “credits,” or pay a fine that goes to a state fund for clean energy grants.
But in 2023, the latest year for which the state has data, renewable energy credits met less than half of the state’s goal and fines made up the rest. That’s a big drop from previous years, and the state said it happened because it was less expensive in 2023 for electric utilities to pay the fine than to pay for renewables.
A 2024 executive order from Gov. Wes Moore set another goal: 100% clean, in-state energy by 2035. The order told the Maryland Energy Administration to create a plan to get there.
Reaching that goal by 2035 is “extremely, extremely unlikely,” Pinsky said at the briefing.
Maryland is struggling to build renewable energy within state borders for a number of reasons.
It can be expensive and difficult to build large-scale facilities like solar farms in Maryland, said Evan Vaughan, executive director of the Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition’s advocacy arm, MAREC Action. Land constraints, high land prices and a crowded transmission grid complicate such efforts, he said.
A backup in project approvals on the regional electricity grid has also caused difficulties.
“While the state certainly does have a strong and growing renewable energy supply today, it does have some unique challenges,” Vaughan said. “You find … common trends across a lot of the smaller, land-constrained states on the East Coast in particular.”
Another law sets a goal of 8.5 gigawatts of offshore wind power by 2031, equal to over half of Maryland’s total energy sales in 2023.
However, that buildout is in peril. The Trump administration paused leasing and permitting for new offshore projects earlier this year. On top of that, Rep. Andy Harris, State Sen. Mary Beth Carozza and Ocean City Mayor Rick Meehan have asked the secretary of the interior to halt a federally approved project off Maryland’s Atlantic coast.
And on July 7, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sent a letter to the Maryland Department of the Environment, citing a project permitting error. According to the letter, Maryland has to reissue the permit in question or risk having it invalidated.
Without new leases for offshore wind, the state won’t be able to achieve its goal, according to the Maryland Public Service Commission. The Trump administration’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” passed in July, will end tax breaks for renewable energy projects such as wind and solar.
Adding it all up, advocates and experts agree Maryland is not where it needs to be.
“You keep on hearing people say, ‘Maryland is a leader in clean energy,’” said Adam Dubitsky, consulting state director of the Maryland Land & Liberty Coalition, a conservative clean energy advocacy group. “And it is simply not true.”
In the General Assembly
While some advocates wanted more of a focus on climate or clean energy during this year’s state legislative session, they celebrated the wins that came their way.
Though advocates are still wary about the push to expedite natural gas, they supported other provisions of the final package such as battery storage procurement — which would store energy generated by wind, solar and fossil fuels — and rate reform. The package would also stop trash incineration from receiving renewable energy subsidies and includes new solar siting standards.
Moving forward, “we just have to figure out how we can responsibly deploy as many renewables and as much [energy] storage as possible,” said State Del. David Fraser-Hidalgo, a Democrat from Montgomery County.
Supporters praised the new solar standards as a way to streamline projects and overcome restrictive county rules, but the standards drew backlash from Eastern Shore Republicans. They asked Moore to veto the bill, saying it could upend agriculture in their districts, but the governor signed it into law.
The package also moved Maryland toward new nuclear energy, which doesn’t produce carbon emissions. Environmental advocates are split on whether nuclear is a boon or a danger, but many lawmakers hailed new nuclear tech as a viable long-term option for clean, reliable energy. Nuclear power already makes up 40% of the electricity generated in Maryland.
“There appears to be an acknowledgement by the majority party and the leadership that we need to incorporate nuclear and natural gas in order to achieve the energy demands that we have in our state, which is a big deal,” said State Del. Jesse Pippy, a Republican from Frederick County who serves as minority whip.
Moore vetoed one of the three bills in the package, which would have set up a new energy planning office. Moore cited costs and overlap with other state agencies as reasons for the veto. The office would have focused on reliability and affordability alongside clean energy goals, and the bill drew praise from both sides of the aisle.
“It’s something that I believe we should have done from the very beginning, before we moved forward with all of our climate change legislation a few years back,” said Carozza, a Republican who represents Somerset, Wicomico and Worcester counties.
The governor also vetoed one study of the costs of greenhouse gas emissions in Maryland and one on data center impacts, frustrating environmental advocates.
Carozza said she believes the state should have known more about the cost of different energy sources, including wind, before enacting its climate goals.
“There now is a recognition at the state level that you cannot just depend on renewable energy to meet Maryland’s energy needs or Maryland’s climate change goals,” Carozza said.
Incremental progress
So, in light of the state’s progress and aggressive goals, can Maryland meet its climate and energy goals on time?
“I am not sure,” said State Sen. Malcolm Augustine, a Democrat from Prince George’s County who serves as president pro tem of the Senate and chair of an energy subcommittee. “But what I do know is that we’re going to work hard to try to achieve that.”
The energy package the General Assembly passed this year moves the state in the right direction, he said. It doesn’t mean the state is backing off its goals but finding a “more achievable route.”
The goals remain state law and Maryland still takes climate change seriously, said State Sen. Brian Feldman, a Democrat from Montgomery County and chair of the Education, Energy and the Environment Committee. He was a lead sponsor of this year’s solar siting bill and sponsored the 2019 law that boosted Maryland’s renewable energy goal to 50% by 2030.
But some advocates felt there wasn’t enough of an emphasis on climate action during the spring legislative session.
“Climate didn’t stay in the conversation the way it should have,” said Tulkin, the Maryland Sierra Club director.
The future is still cloudy for state climate action, though, thanks to the Trump administration’s slew of changes to federal climate and energy policy. Among a host of other actions from the administration, a Trump executive order directs the U.S. attorney general to identify and stop state laws addressing climate change, emissions or environmental justice issues.
Pinsky wrote in response that the move was “worse than irresponsible” and disruptive, accusing the administration of interfering with state matters during a global crisis.
Even so, other climate advocates note Maryland is moving in the right direction despite the challenges it faces.
“What we need to do is just keep taking steps forward,” Coble said. “We just keep chipping away at it, and if we continue to take two to three steps forward every year, it is a whole lot better than doing nothing, that’s for sure.”